PTAB

IPR2024-00270

Cisco Systems Inc v. UMBRA Technologies Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems and Methods for Providing a Global Virtual Network (GVN)
  • Brief Description: The ’595 patent relates to systems and methods for managing virtual network connections. The technology is directed to a control server that receives a request from a network device and provides a dynamically ordered list of available servers to establish an optimized connection, aiming to improve routing efficiency over standard internet protocols.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-14 over Kommula

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kommula (Application # 2010/0153558).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kommula's disclosure of a Global Server Load Balancing (GSLB) system anticipates or renders obvious all limitations of independent claims 1 (method) and 8 (system). Petitioner mapped the claim steps to Kommula’s system, where a GSLB switch receives a DNS query (a request for a list of available servers) from a client program (a network device). The GSLB switch then retrieves a list of server IP addresses and associated performance records, such as round-trip time (RTT) and server load. Based on these records, the GSLB switch dynamically orders the list of server IPs to place the "best" performing server at the top and transmits this ordered list back to the client.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground relies on a single reference.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): This ground relies on a single reference.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Kommula addresses the same problem as the ’595 patent—inefficient server selection—and provides an identical high-level solution by using contextual network data to rank server options for a requesting client.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 15-20 over Hankins, alone or in view of Kommula

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hankins (Patent 10,177,957) and Kommula (Application # 2010/0153558).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Hankins describes the core architecture of independent claim 15. Hankins discloses a network system with a controller that provisions and manages connections between endpoint devices (gateways) through tunnel servers (access point servers) via tunnels. The controller receives and stores network configuration data (records) from the endpoint devices to facilitate these connections. Petitioner argued this structure directly maps to the claimed system of an access point server connected to endpoints via first tunnels and a control server connected to the access point server that stores records associated with the endpoints.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): To the extent Hankins does not explicitly teach dynamically ordering the list of available tunnel servers, Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine Hankins with Kommula. The motivation stems from improving the network efficiency of Hankins' system, an express goal of the reference. A POSITA would apply Kommula's well-understood method of ordering servers based on performance metrics (e.g., proximity, latency) to Hankins' system to more effectively select the best tunnel server, thereby achieving a more efficient and reliable network.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success in this combination. The integration involves applying a known software-based optimization technique (Kommula's dynamic ordering) to a known network architecture (Hankins' tunneling system) to achieve the predictable result of improved server selection and network performance.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors. Petitioner asserted that the co-pending district court litigation is in its early stages, with a trial date in August 2026 that is more than a year after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD) in this IPR. Furthermore, Petitioner offered a Sotera stipulation, committing not to pursue in the parallel litigation any invalidity ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in this IPR, which weighs heavily against discretionary denial.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 11,108,595 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.